US court rules FCC can't enforce 'net neutrality'

[Goronmon]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

[Siraris]

Yay capitalism.

[Doctor Setebos]

Well, fuck.

[civil]

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q135/tlots/CoG/America.jpg

[TheFlyingOrc]

oh no they can prioritize packets based on type

[hunterx280]

I saw this a little earlier, all I could think was, "Oh crap..."

EDIT: I also thought that it might be time to switch internet providers but then I realized, the precedent is set. It really just depends on the ISPs not being ass holes. Then I went back to, "Oh crap..."

[Goronmon]

I guess that this ruling isn't really a surprise, as the FCC doesn't have some broad allowance of power to govern anything related to the internet. But maybe it at least identifies an area of law that needs to be looked at.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this just gives ISPs license to prioritize traffic anyway they like.

[Kielaran]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this just gives ISPs license to prioritize traffic anyway they like.

That's the way I see it. Instead of it being unknown territory, they have been given the green light to do as they wish.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's the way I see it. Instead of it being unknown territory, they have been given the green light to do as they wish.

They've had the green light the whole time.

[DoctorFinger]

Congress could draft a law mandating Net Neutrality in a heartbeat, they just haven't. I totally support net neutrality, but frankly I don't think the FCC should have this level of power over the internet.

[Doctor Setebos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies."What? No! We wouldn't do something like that! We swear! Honestly!"

Hooray for progress.

[Panthera]

oh no they can prioritize packets based on type

Which my ISP does, and it fucking sucks.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Which my ISP does, and it fucking sucks.

Well, it does for certain people's uses. However, it's certainly better than having EVERYTHING be unreachable because the pipes are completely slammed.

I mean, the obvious thing would be upgrading the tubes, but they don't do that much.

[Doctor Setebos]

I mean, the obvious thing would be upgrading the tubes, but they don't do that much.We could really do with an upgrade. South Korea averages broadband speeds of around 14.6Mbps. Hell, I'd even settle for Japan's 7.9Mbps average. By comparison, the US averages around 3.9Mbps.

ISP's can't pretend they don't have access to the tech. They just want to limit access so they have more control and force people to pay through the nose for mediocre service.

[TheFlyingOrc]

ISP's can't pretend they don't have access to the tech. They just want to limit access so they have more control and force people to pay through the nose for mediocre service.

No - the problem is three things: 1, they have old infrastructure laid. Think about two of the biggest high speed technologies: Cable and DSL. Both were developed to use already existing cable without laying new stuff.

Secondly: North America is a terrible place to put down new infrastructure - we're spread out to all hell. Upgrading New York? Not that big a deal. Upgrading South Carolina? Much harder.

And, finally: Local monopolies. They don't have to improve because nobody has another choice. Where I am, TWC is the only group with high speed cable. If there were 2 alternatives, then SOMEBODY would increase their speed in order to steal the other guy's business. But they can't due to local government contracts, so now competition occurs! YAY!

[Doctor Setebos]

No - the problem is three things: 1, they have old infrastructure laid. Think about two of the biggest high speed technologies: Cable and DSL. Both were developed to use already existing cable without laying new stuff.

Secondly: North America is a terrible place to put down new infrastructure - we're spread out to all hell. Upgrading New York? Not that big a deal. Upgrading South Carolina? Much harder.

And, finally: Local monopolies. They don't have to improve because nobody has another choice. Where I am, TWC is the only group with high speed cable. If there were 2 alternatives, then SOMEBODY would increase their speed in order to steal the other guy's business. But they can't due to local government contracts, so now competition occurs! YAY!I agree completely with all of that, but that doesn't change the fact that they currently have access to the technology. They are just not implementing it, for the reasons you stated. The reason South Korea was able to implement such amazing infrastructure so well was because the government intervened and created regulation that encouraged innovation and competition. We need to do something similar here, and net neutrality will help that. ISP's blocking access to various parts of the internet based on their own hidden agendas will stifle innovation and keep users contained within walled gardens. That only benefits the ISP's.

I'm not saying it would be easy or cheap. But we need to upgrade. How can America compete in a global marketplace with the slowest internet speeds? And since you're right, that some areas have monopolies, we need some government intervention to help new companies take root and thrive in those areas.

[BigJonno]

I dread to think what state the UK's telecoms network would be like if BT hadn't been smacked down by the government.

[Hawkzombie]

Thank god I live in Canada :p

[DoctorFinger]

South Korea is a terrible example to cite for broadband speeds. They have 50 million people in a country the size of Kentucky, 80% of whom are within 100 miles of Seoul. They're so densely packed that almost everyone can have Fiber cheaply, which isn't the case here.

[Doctor Setebos]

But that argument doesn't really make sense because even densely populated areas of the United States have relatively poor broadband speeds. The District of Columbia is one of the most densely-populated cities in the nation and it has some of the worst broadband speed quality (in comparison to places like Japan and South Korea).

[Siraris]

It is difficult to get broadband out to rural areas, there's no question, but there's no excuse for big cities. New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Dallas, all these places should have 100 megabit internet MINIMUM. While I don't think that we should actively exclude someone who lives way out in the country, the importance of high speed internet is more relevant in the huge population centers.

[Goronmon]

But that argument doesn't really make sense because even densely populated areas of the United States have relatively poor broadband speeds. The District of Columbia is one of the most densely-populated cities in the nation and it has some of the worst broadband speed quality (in comparison to places like Japan and South Korea).This is exactly why the "US is too spread out" argument really holds no water at all. All it comes down to is that the ISPs don't want to spend on infrastructure when then can just squeeze existing customers for as much money as they can.

[MagGnome]

Our internet "service" in the US is ridiculous. I've ranted about this before, but that won't stop me from doing it again. :p

The Twin Cities, an area with 2-3+ million people (depending on whose numbers you use) has two major ISPs. Comcast and Qwest. Comcast is overpriced and the service is pretty spotty. Their customer service is terrible, and they mandate that someone comes out to your house to connect the internet for you, at the cost of $70. This person stands in your living room or office, calls a number, and tells them to turn on the line. That's it. It's a total fucking joke.

Qwest is (sort of) cheaper, has better customer service (in my experience), but it's also slower. The fastest speed I can get is 1.5MB DSL, and I live right in the city. They supposedly have faster speeds available...somewhere. I can't imagine why they wouldn't put those lines in the area I live in considering how urban and populated it is.

I had better/cheaper internet in Nebraska, when there was actually some competition among smaller ISPs. Here Comcast has a monopoly over cable, with Qwest relegated to DSL. These kind of monopolies should be illegal.

Edit - I should also note that Minneapolis partnered with a company to build a "city-wide" wireless network a couple of years ago. I lived in a major neighborhood right in Downtown, yet I couldn't get the service there. In fact, most of the downtown area was excluded, as were many of the surrounding neighborhoods. It simply boggles my mind.

[Panthera]

Thank god I live in Canada :p

A country among the worst in internet service in the developed world!

[Hawkzombie]

That may be true, but I can't get in trouble for using bittorrents!

Yet :p

[J Arcane]

A country among the worst in internet service in the developed world!
Could be worse. He could be in Australia.

[Siraris]

Australia is at least near New Zealand, which is effing gorgeous. What's near Canada that's worth going to? Yea, nothin'!

[Hawkzombie]

Australia is at least near New Zealand, which is effing gorgeous. What's near Canada that's worth going to? Yea, nothin'!

Yeah, all we have near us is the States :p

[MagGnome]

Don't forget Greenland! :p

[Panthera]

That may be true, but I can't get in trouble for using bittorrents!

Yet :p

They can just throttle those bittorrents down to 25k/s.

Bell Sympatico can eat a bag of cocks.

[Hawkzombie]

Shaw got in a bit of hot water for that a while ago, didn't they? From what I know they don't (at least admit it) do it anymore.

[MagGnome]

Bell Sympatico can eat a bag of cocks.

They could if you weren't hogging all of them. :p

[Doctor Setebos]

Must we fill every thread with homo-erotic imagery?

[civil]

Must we fill every thread with homo-erotic imagery?
:: looks at the Doctor's avatar ::

Certainly every thread you post in, Tootsie Roll.

[MagGnome]

Civil posted that image of the two lesbians duking it out, so I figured it was fair game. :o

[Ultima Thulian]

As a general rule, I support any decision that essentially equates to a giant "Fuck you." to the FCC.

Net neutrality is nice, but as the good doctor stated, the FCC shouldn't have this kinda power over the net. Or IMO, any power, to be frank.